Suchergebnisse

Engl. Zsfassung u.d.T.: 1941 June uprising

The article explores positivism-postpositivism debate in social sciences that has been lasting already for many years. The author does not suppose this debate will end soon since it raises fundamental questions concerning the aims, tasks and methods of social sciences. Though representatives of these sciences differ significantly in views on these questions, the most of them and, in particular, evident majority of representatives of political science virtually holds positivist views. Such questions, which may be called conceptual, are essentially disputable, so they cannot be resolved by any empirical research. When examining positivism-postpositivism debate the author singles out, paying tribute to tradition, three aspects of debate: (1) ontological, (2) epistemological, and (3) methodological. Yet he presents the arguments to support his claim that because of its antimetaphysical character positivism can have no ontology at all. Therefore an ontological dispute between positivists and postpositivists is simply impossible. Postpositivists, in discussing epistemological questions, would be inclined to reject positivist viewpoint that our statements and theories about social life can be true (though according to modern positivists, we can never know it for sure). They also would reject the positivist distinction between facts and values, which likewise can be considered as epistemological. But the most serious dispute that is taking place in social sciences concerns methodological questions. The author, in analyzing it, pays most attention to two most influential forms of postpositivism, namely to critical theory and postmodernism. Having discussed genealogy and deconstruction which, though with serious reservations, may be considered as postpositivist methods, the author claims that postpositivism lacks the main part of methodology, i.e. rules of accepting scientific statements and theories. And that is why postpositivism cannot win the methodological debate over positivism which has such rules. Adapted from the source document.

This article deals with the present mechanism of political parties funding in Lithuania. Although the legislator of Lithuania has passed laws that should have influence on prevention of corruption in politics, but the results of quantitative & qualitative researches show that the rules concerned with funding of parties are not enough effective de facto. In this article author analyzes in detail the particularities of private & public funding models of political parties & expand the concept that in a modern democracy it is necessary not to choose one of those patterns, but try to combine them effectively. The author concludes that the main obstacle for the transparent funding of political parties in Lithuania is "the corrupted mentality" which regulations are not able to surmount yet. Adapted from the source document.